Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jeff
They've been banned for a long time now, right? I'm not sure as to how long, but is there anybody who really missed them?
What's the big deal about re-banning them? They just seem completely unnecessary to me?
|
So-called "assault weapons" are mainly semi-automatic versions of military weapons. Civilian versions of military-style weapons are not capable of being easily modified to full-auto. For example, a kit to convert a civilian MP5 to full-auto is subject to
the same regulations as full-auto and other "Class 3" weapons. Additionally, the kit costs well over $9000.
What is an assault weapon?
Quote:
from awbansunset.com
Specifically, a rifle is considered an "assault weapon" if it can accept a detachable magazine, and possesses two or more of the following features:
Folding or telescopic stock
Pistol grip protruding conspicuously beneath the stock
Bayonet mount
Flash suppressor or threaded barrel
Grenade launcher
For a pistol to be considered a ?SAW,? [semi-automatic assault weapon] among other things, it must have the ability to accept a detachable magazine, plus two of the following features:
Magazine that attaches outside of the pistol grip
Threaded barrel capable of accepting a barrel extender, flash suppressor, forward handgrip, or silencer
Shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel and that permits the shooter to hold the firearm with the non-trigger hand without being burned
Manufactured weight of 50 ounces or more when the pistol is unloaded
Semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm
|
So, if they're just another type of semi-auto weapons, why would anyone care about them being banned? One problem is the slippery Slope. If we start arbitrarily banning guns that look scary, who can tell us where to stop?
Now that we've gotten the politics out of the way, why would anyone want to own one? Let's go feature by feature.
Rifles
1: Folding or telescopic stock. This feature allow for easier storage or transport of a firearm. In home defense usage, the lack of an extended stock allows for more maneuverability. Imagine trying to move through doorways in your own house with a long rifle ant your shoulder, trying to defend yourself against an armed intruder.
2: Pistol grip protruding conspicuously beneath the stock. This is an ergonomic feature. Any hunter or target shooter can tell you that a more comfortable grip makes the gun easier to hold for extended periods of time. It also allows semi-automatic civilian versions of military weapons to be manufactured without significant alterations to the design, allowing the same body to be used in both versions. The presence of a pistol grip is necessary when the stock is in line with the barrel in order to give the user something to hold onto to control recoil and aim properly.
3: Bayonet mount. Nothing needs to be said here. I will, however, concede that I have not hear a single reliable report of a drive-by bayonetting since the AWB was passed.
4: Flash suppressor or threaded barrel. The reason this grabs the attention is because the term "flash suppressor" has been associated with the incorrectly-named "silencer" due to movies and TV. In reality, the flash suppressor prevents the flash from blinding the user while firing in the dark. It does nothing to muffle the sound. A threaded barrel does, in theory, allow a suppressor (not silencer) to be attached easily, but the sale and posession of suppressors has been heavily regulated since the National Firearms Act of 1934, and to obtain one legally requires the same paperwork and background check as the purchase of a fullty automatic weapon.
5: Grenade launcher. These have been regulated by the NFA of 1934 since it was passed. This was attached to the AWB solely for the purpose of having a measure in the bill that makes it sound like it does something. In reality, it's a redundancy of a law that has been in place for 80 years.
Pistols
The deatachable magazine provision means that revolvers are exempted from these provisions.
1: Magazine that attaches outside of the pistol grip. This feature has no effect on functionality, it simply makes the gun look scary.
2: Threaded barrel. Same as with rifles. Has no effect on functionality. Some may accept a flash suppressor.
3: Shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel. Holding the barrel with the other hand does not affect the functionality of the gun. Simply put. another feature that looks "scary." Specifically targets TEC-9 and MAC-10 type weapons. These shrouds prevent you from burning your hand if you have to touch the barrel after firing the gun.
4: Manufactured weight of over 50 ounces, unloaded weight. I just don't know. I can't tell you what guns it targeted, or why. It seems completely illogical.
5: Semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm. Once again, it looks "scary." There's no logical reason to ban them.
So, after all that, why would you want to own a civilian version of a military weapon? Here are just a few reasons:
-Military weapons are manufactured with higher quality control standards.
-Durability and reliability are important to the military. Anyone who buys anything recognizes the importance of these two features.
-Replacement parts are readily available.
-Military rifles are meant to be used for prolonged periods of time, if necessary. They are more comfortable to hold and rest on the shoulder.
Would you rather own a 6-cylinder BMW with a downtuned engine, or a top-of-the-line 6-cylinder Hyundai? I know which I'd pick.